[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231107205151.qkwlw7aarjvkyrqs@f>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 21:51:51 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/exec.c: Add fast path for ENOENT on PATH search
before allocating mm
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:30:37PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:41:30PM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Currently, execve allocates an mm and parses argv and envp before
> > checking if the path exists. However, the common case of a $PATH search
> > may have several failed calls to exec before a single success. Do a
> > filename lookup for the purposes of returning ENOENT before doing more
> > expensive operations.
> >
> > This does not create a TOCTTOU race, because this can only happen if the
> > file didn't exist at some point during the exec call, and that point is
> > permitted to be when we did our lookup.
> >
> > To measure performance, I ran 2000 fork and execvpe calls with a
> > seven-element PATH in which the file was found in the seventh directory
> > (representative of the common case as /usr/bin is the seventh directory
> > on my $PATH), as well as 2000 fork and execve calls with an absolute
> > path to an existing binary. I recorded the minimum time for each, to
> > eliminate noise from context switches and similar.
> >
> > Without fast-path:
> > fork/execvpe: 49876ns
> > fork/execve: 32773ns
> >
> > With fast-path:
> > fork/execvpe: 36890ns
> > fork/execve: 32069ns
> >
> > The cost of the additional lookup seems to be in the noise for a
> > successful exec, but it provides a 26% improvement for the path search
> > case by speeding up the six failed execs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
>
> *thread necromancy*
>
> I'll snag this patch after -rc1 is out. Based on the research we both
> did in the rest of this thread, this original patch is a clear win.
> Let's get it into linux-next and see if anything else falls out of it.
>
So the obvious question is why not store lookup result within bprm,
instead of doing the lookup again later.
Turns out you had very same question and even wrote a patch to sort it
out: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202209161637.9EDAF6B18@keescook/
Why do you intend to go with this patch instead?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists